This spring, scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency completed a report on the toxicity of a “forever chemical” called PFNA, which is in the drinking water systems serving some 26 million people. The assessment found that PFNA interferes with human development by causing lower birth weights and, based on animal evidence, likely causes damage to the liver and to male reproductive systems, including reductions in testosterone levels, sperm production and the size of reproductive organs.
The report also calculated the amount of PFNA that people could be exposed to without being harmed — a critical measurement that can be used to set limits for cleaning up PFNA contamination in Superfund sites and for removing the chemical from drinking water.
For months, however, the report has sat in limbo, raising concerns among some scientists and environmentalists that the Trump administration might change it or not release it at all.
The EPA told ProPublica the report would be published when it was finalized, though the press office did not answer questions about what still needed to be done or when that would likely happen.
But the report’s final version was “completed and ready to post” in mid-April, according to an internal document reviewed by ProPublica. And two scientists familiar with the assessment confirmed the report has been finalized and ready for publication since April.
“Scientifically, it was done,” said one of the two scientists, who both worked in the EPA’s Office of Research and Development and who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly about the unreleased report.
“All that was left to do was to brief higher-ups about the report and post it,” the scientist said, adding that such a delay was unusual. “In recent years, the assessments tended to be finalized within a few weeks.”
A draft version of the assessment was made public last year and drew objections from an industry trade group. The final version, which retained the calculations published in the draft report, was completed shortly before the EPA announced its intention in May to rescind and reconsider limits on the amount of PFNA and several other forever chemicals allowed in drinking water. The limits had been set last year by President Joe Biden’s administration.
Darya Minovi, a senior analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, pointed to that pending change as a possible motivation for not publishing the PFNA assessment. “If you’re trying to roll back drinking water standards, you probably don’t want to release information that makes the case for why those standards are necessary,” said Minovi.
The nonprofit science advocacy group called attention to the unpublished report in a social media post last month that said, “Without this assessment, federal and state agencies are denied the best available science that they rely on to protect public health.”
PFNA is so hazardous that the EPA struck an agreement with eight companies to phase it out nearly two decades ago. The chemical was a component of firefighting foam and a processing aid to make a kind of plastic used in circuit boards, valves and pipes. PFNA has been found in water near sites where the foam was used and in the drinking water in 28 states, according to an analysis of EPA and state data by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group.
Local governments around the country have been trying to get companies that used and made forever chemicals such as PFNA to foot the bill for the expensive job of cleaning up contamination. In 2019, the state of New Jersey ordered the owner of an industrial plant in West Deptford to address chemical contamination at the site, where high levels of PFNA had been found in the nearby soil and water. The state took the company, Solvay Specialty Polymers, to court, accusing it of failing to fully comply. As part of a legal settlement, Solvay agreed to pay more than $393 million and to clean up contamination. The company, which has since become Syensqo Specialty Polymers, pointed out to ProPublica other sources of PFNA contamination in the area of the plant and noted that it settled the suit without admission of liability.
Solvay tried to influence the EPA over the drinking water limit the agency set for PFNA and other chemicals in the class, according to lobbying records. The company also lobbied Congress over legislation that would prevent chemical assessments conducted by the agency’s Integrated Risk Information System program from being used in regulation. IRIS, as the program is known, analyzes the harm chemicals can cause and put together the PFNA report. Syensqo and Solvay did not respond to questions about lobbying and whether they asked the EPA either to change or not release the IRIS report on PFNA.
Scientists in the EPA’s IRIS program began work on the assessment because PFNA, short for perfluorononanoic acid, appeared particularly dangerous. Like other compounds in its class, PFNA doesn’t break down in nature. Scientists had already found it in soil and water around the country. It was also measured in food, air, indoor dust and fish — as well as in breastmilk, fetal tissues and human blood. Perhaps most worrisome, studies had already suggested that the chemical caused serious harm to people and lab animals.
A draft of the report, which reflected five years of collecting and reviewing studies, found that, in addition to developmental, liver and reproductive harms, PFNA “may cause” immune problems, thyroid effects, harm to the developing brain and a cluster of other disorders, including Type 2 diabetes. The American Chemistry Council took issue with the report’s findings on low birth weight and liver issues, arguing that the evidence wasn’t as robust as the report claimed. The industry trade group did not address the reproductive threats posed by PFNA, which have been documented by other regulatory agencies and are part of a larger body of evidence linking “forever chemicals” with male reproductive harms, such as smaller testes and a reduction in the number and mobility of sperm. Forever chemicals, also known as PFAS, are also associated with female reproductive problems, such as endometriosis, ovarian dysfunction and tumors and dramatic decreases in fertility
Questions about the fate of the PFNA report extend to the fate of the IRIS program that conducted it and to the EPA’s handling of toxic chemicals more broadly.
IRIS was created during Ronald Reagan’s presidency to provide an independent and reliable source of information about pollutants that can harm the public. Dozens of EPA scientists contribute to a typical assessment, which takes years to complete and is subject to extensive peer review. The level of scientific scrutiny and expertise means these documents are trusted by environmental experts around the world.
Many hoped that, because it was separate from regulatory arms of the agency, IRIS would be insulated from political pressures. But almost from its start, industry has targeted the program, whose assessments can trigger toxic waste cleanups and expensive regulatory changes.
Project 2025, the conservative blueprint that has set the direction for President Donald Trump’s second administration, called for IRIS to be eliminated. Earlier this year, Republicans in Congress introduced legislation called the “No IRIS Act.” Their proposal would prohibit the EPA from using the program’s assessments in environmental rules, regulations, enforcement actions and permits that limit the amount of pollution allowed into air and water, and from using them to map the health risks from toxic chemicals. That legislation has been referred to committee in both the House and the Senate but not yet passed in either branch.
Since Trump took office, the IRIS program has been decimated. The program was housed in the Office of Research and Development, which has been dramatically reduced under Trump as part of a major reorganization of the agency. Of 55 scientists ProPublica identified as having worked on recent IRIS assessments, only eight remain in the office, according to a source familiar with the program. The rest have either been assigned to jobs elsewhere in the agency or have left the EPA.
“Through the movement of bodies, they have disassembled IRIS,” said one scientist who worked with the program for decades and recently left the EPA. “It feels like the efforts of a couple of generations of scientists who have worked extremely diligently to produce the world’s most highly vetted assessments has been set aside with no path forward.”
Meanwhile, the IRIS program stopped issuing the reports it has regularly posted for years about its progress. The most recent, published in February, noted that the PFNA assessment was scheduled to be released in the second quarter of the financial year, which ended in June.
Asked about the status of the program, an EPA spokesperson told ProPublica that “it is inaccurate to say that IRIS no longer exists.” The press office did not respond to follow-up questions about whether it’s accurate to say that IRIS does exist, how many people still work there, whether the agency plans to allow continued access to its database of chemical assessments and how it plans to use those assessments in the future. The EPA has not made clear how it plans to continue gauging the toxicity of chemicals.
In its May press release, the EPA said it was “committed to addressing” forever chemicals in drinking water. At the same time, it was rolling back drinking water limits on some of the compounds. The agency is also reconsidering bans on solvents called TCE and PCE, which are linked to Parkinson’s disease. It is offering exemptions from pollution restrictions for up to two years to companies that email the agency and is in the process of reversing rules designed to protect the public from toxic air pollution. The agency recently announced a plan to ease regulations on climate pollutants known as hydrofluorocarbons.
Under Trump, the EPA, which was created to protect public health, has celebrated its efforts to reverse regulations and champion industry. But people concerned about the health effects of chemicals see the agency’s retreat from environmental protections as a betrayal. Laurene Allen, an environmental advocate who lives in Merrimack, New Hampshire, where PFNA was one of several forever chemicals discovered in drinking water in 2016, was awaiting the report and is frustrated and enraged by its delay.
“This is the suppression of information,” said Allen, who co-founded the National PFAS Contamination Coalition. “We have the science, and it shouldn’t be obstructed.”
Mariam Elba contributed research.
